I consider the assertion that "because 3 points define a plane, a 3 point distribution system distributes weight better than a 4 point system" to be a fallacy. The actual distribution of the force is determined by the distribution of the masses within the confines of the chassis rectangle that encloses it. I assert that when such a rectangle is supported at only 3 points, a disproportional amount of the force is placed one of the points, and the two unsupported triangular sections of the chassis are now not mechanically damped, so they are free to pick up vibrations coupled from the room. My speakers are too large to place on points. The difficulty you refer to is caused by misalignment of the floor, and a 3 point support better tolerates the misalignment, but it's not really distributing the weight any better.

kloneman,

I know what you are saying, and yes, in an ideal world where each of the four feet is perfectly balanced and having equal pressure contact with the floor the weight is distributed over four rather than three points and therefore more evenly distributed.

My point is that in a four point system, this almost never happens, and each foot is seeing different load, whereas a three point system first off is more likely to equally distribute the weight to each footer and will always align with any surface, even markedly irregular floors and tiling. As far as the load I believe you will find a three point system will generally do this.

Now, there are the extra shelving pieces left unsupported, but the shelves for these are pretty thick (I think an inch) and can be covered in carbon fiber for even more strength and resonance control so I think you'd be pretty good there.